INDIAN SULPHACID INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, KARNAL

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Shri R.L. Negi

TDS on Contractor ; Rs. 13,90,000/-' : Rs.28.60.000/- Alongwith this, the assessee had submitted 3 bills of the above parties. From perusal of the bills, the following discrepancies are noted :- i) The bill from Mayank Gupta, Builders & Contractors, 9- TAGARE PARK, Delhi, is for Rs.13.90 Lacs on account of repair of Building, Raising: Partition Walls, plastering, repair of bathroom/kitchen

KAMLA RETAIL LTD., NOW KNOWN AS M/S ETHOS LTD.,,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, R-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavm/S. Kamla Retail Ltd. Additional Cit, Range-1, बनाम Now Known As Ethos Limited, Chadigarh. Sco-88-89, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadck2345N

section 40(a)(ia) are equally attracted which provides for the allowability of expenses in the year in which the TDS has been deducted and paid. In the instant case, it is a matter of record that the assessee has paid and accounted for these expenses in the books of accounts in the financial year relevant to the impugned assessment

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 50% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 4.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 50% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 4.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 50% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 4.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 50% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 4.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 50% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 4.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 50% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 4.1 As per the AO, the income

VARDHMAN POLYTEX LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT(TDS), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi. Though Notices Were Issued Electronically Through The E-Filing Portal, The Assessee Contended That Such Notices Were Neither Brought To Their Knowledge Nor Received Through Any Alternative Means Such As Email Or Physical Intimation. Consequently, The Appeal Was Dismissed Ex Parte. It Was Further Submitted That The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal Is Legal In Nature & Does Not Require Examination Of Disputed Facts; Hence, The Matter May Be Adjudicated On Merits Without The Necessity Of A Remand To The Lower Authorities.

90,081/- raised under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act, arising out of alleged non-deduction of tax at source under Section 194C(6) in respect of freight payments made to certain transporters. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not participate in the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that